Karnataka High Court
B Krishna Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 6736 OF 2022 (S-R)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14996 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN WP NO. 6736/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MR. V. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1867, I MAIN ROAD,
7TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560065.
2. MR. VENKOBA RAO R
S/O LATE SRI. P.Y.RANOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT NO.404, PADMAKUNJ
4TH CROSS, 8TH D MAIN,
1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT,
Digitally signed KALYANA NAGARA,
by BENGALURU-560043.
MARIGANGAIAH
PREMAKUMARI
3. MR. K.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE SRI MARALUSIDDAPPA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, 5TH A MAIN,
ESCORTS LAYOUT, ATTUR,
YELAHANKA NEW POST,
BANGALORE-560064.
4. MR.A.VIJAYAMURTHY
S/O P.M.ANJANI RAMAIAH
AGD 83 YEARS,
NO.M-3-15, NEW 39,
MADAN NIVAS, NANDIDURGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560041.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
5. MR.K.S.RAGHUNATH
S/O LATE SRI SEETHARAMAIH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
NO.176, 7TH MAIN,
2ND C CROSS, NAGENDRA BLACK,
SBM COLONY, BANGALORE-560050.
6. MR. G.K.SESHAGIRI RAO
S/O LATE G.S.KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
NO.7/1, 1ST TEMPLE STREET,
16TH CROSS, MALESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
7. MR.SHESHACHALAM V
S/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
NO.891, 16TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST,
BANGALORE-560065.
8. MR.T.GOPAL
S/O LATE SRI TIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
NO.475, 25TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST,
BANGALORE-560065.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VYASA KIRAN UPADHYA B.R., AND
SRI SIDDHARTHA H.M., ADVS.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
3. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU -560 001
REP. BY REGISTRAR GENERAL.
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
FINANCE (SERVICE-2)
M S BUILDING V PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
5. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 & R5
SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)DECLARE THAT RULE
4(A) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (OFFICERS AND
OFFICIALS) REVISED PAY RULES, 2018 IN SO FAR AS IT FIXES A
CUT-OFF DATE OF 06/10/2004, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 14996/2021
BETWEEN:
1. B KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE G.V BHARADWAJ,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
NO.969, 16TH CROSS,
16TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
GKVK POST, BENGALURU 560065.
2. P DATTATREYA BHAT
S/O LATE H.PADMANABHA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
NO.1, 5TH CROSS, I BLOCK,
ANANDANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560032.
3. P M KULKARNI
S/O LATE MADHVARAO R KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
NO.273, 11TH CROSS,
SARASWATHINAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
4. MUNIRAJ V
S/O.LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO.68, MC LAYOUT,
16TH MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
5. B S ANANTHARAMAN
S/O LATE B.SAMBASIVAN,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO.302, SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCY,
7TH CROSS, III STAGE,
BANASHANKARI,
BENGALURU-560085.
6. B B SATIESH
S/O LATE A.M. BELLIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO.9, 11TH A CROSS,
MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560097.
7. SRINIVASA RAO P
S/O.LATE P.RAO,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
NEAR CHIKKA ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
KOLAR-563101.
8. P NARASIMHAN
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
NO.522, 11TH A CROSS,
8TH MAIN, J P NAGAR II PHASE,
BENGALURU-560078.
9. R V GOPALA RAO
S/O LATE R.VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
NO.1026, 13TH A MAIN,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
THIRUMALAMBAR ROAD,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560019.
10. M K JAYARAM
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
NO.852, 31-A CROSS,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041.
11. H N SHANTHAMMA
S/O LATE H.NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
NO.1205, 26TH MAIN,
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560069.
12. SHIVALINGAPPA K
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
DOOR NO.116,
VINAYAKA EXTENSION,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560019.
13. ARTHUR DENIS JOHN
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
NO.24/1, 1ST CROSS,
C.S.I. COMPOUND,
MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
14. S R PADMA
W/O LATE V.RAMABADRAN,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
NO.SF2, BHASKARA NEST APARTMENT,
SEENAPPA LAYOUT,
NEW BHEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560094.
15. J NEELAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO.792, VII BLOCK,
II PHASE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560085.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
16. H K NAGABHUSHANA
S/O.H.K.NAGABHUSHANA
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
NO.777, SWIMMING POOL ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560086.
17. S G RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE S GURUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
NO.1303, 3A CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560065.
18. BHIMASEN RAO KULKARNI
S/O LATE ANANTARAO KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,
NO.1172, 10TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST,
BENGALURU-560065.
19. H S NAGABHUSHAN
S/O LATE H.SHRIKANTIAH,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
K-001, NCC MEDOWS-2,
DODABALLAPURA ROAD,
PUTTENAHALLI, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560064.
20. N SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO.87, HOMBALE MAYURAVARMA ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURA, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560019.
21. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
NO.548, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
MC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
22. LAKSHMAN K V
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
NO.791/842, 1ST D ROAD,
II PHASE, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560085.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
23. H B NEELAKANTACHAR
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
NO.20/4, 16TH A MAIN ROAD,
II CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
GH LAYOUT III BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560011.
24. T SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
NO.105, IV CROSS,
VITTAL NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560018.
25. K V HUCHANNA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
NO.317/11, 9TH J MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
26. B A BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
NO.136, 3RD MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
27. AMBIKA BAI C
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO.7, RAGHAV NILAYA,
7TH TEMPLE ROAD, 15TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560003.
28. SRIKANTH K
S/O LATE K.G. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO.434/A, 6TH CROSS, VII BLOCK,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560082.
29. SUNDAR RAJ R S
S/O LATE R.J.S. MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
NO.94, VISWALAYA, 4TH CROSS,
I BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560011.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
30. ABDUL HAFEEZ
S/O ABDUL GHANI,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO.31/1, COCKBURN ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560051.
31. CHANIYAPPA NAIKA K
S/O K. RAMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
FLAT NO.3-50/7,
GUBBI CROSS,
BENGALURU NORTH-560077.
32. KRISHNA NAIK K
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO.3, PALACE LOOP ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560052.
33. NARAYANA A D
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO.1023, 5TH BLOCK,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
34. B M VENKATAPPA
S/O MUDALAGIRI,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
NO.9, IV MAIN
SRIKANTESWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098.
35. N BHEEMA RAO
S/O B. NIMBOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
NO.18, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
KRISHNAPPA BLOCK,
GANGANAGAR EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560032.
36. SMT. VIJAYA M S
W/O LATE K SUBRAHMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
NO.A103, ELEGANT EMBASSY NORTH,
JAKKUR, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560064.
37. NARASIMHAMURTHY K R
S/O LATE K.V.RAMASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
NO.680, BSK 1ST STAGE,
2ND BLOCK, 2ND CROSS,
BANASHANKARI,
BENGALURU-560050.
38. N M KULAKARNI
S/O LATE SIR.M.KULAKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 81YEARS,
NO.A0101, D.S.MAX SAVERA APARTMENTS,
UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560061.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VYASA KIRAN UPADHYA B R., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY REGISTRAR GENERAL.
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
FINANCE (SERVICE-2),
M.S. BUILDING V PHASE,
BENGALURU-560001.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
WP No. 6736 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021
5. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4
SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R3
R5 - NOTICE H/S V/O DATED 26.11.2021)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE
4(A) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (OFFICERS AND
OFFICIALS) REVISED PAY RULES, 2018 IN SO FAR AS IT FIXES A
CUT-OFF DATE OF 06.10.2004 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
DIRECT THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE R1 HEREIN TO EXTENT
THE BENEFIT OF REVISION IN PAY SCALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PENSIONARY AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS, AS
PER THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (OFFICERS AND
OFFICIALS) REVISED PAY RULES, 2018.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
ORAL ORDER
Since prayer of the petitioners in both the writ
petitions is common, both the writ petitions are taken up
together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions have
prayed for the common relief, which reads as under:
"a) Declare that Rule 4(a) of the 'High
Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
Revised Pay Rules, 2018' insofar as it fixes a
cut-off date of 06.10.2004, is unconstitutional.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other writ, order or direction, directing the
State of Karnataka, the first respondent herein
to extend the benefit of revision in pay scale for
the purpose of pensionary and other benefits to
the petitioners, as per the High Court of
Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised pay
Rules, 2018."
3. The petitioners claim that they are retired
employees of the third respondent - High Court of
Karnataka, who retired on attaining the age of
superannuation prior to 06.10.2004. On the
recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court
of Karnataka - respondent No.3 herein, the first
respondent published High Court of Karnataka (Officers
and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 (for short, '2018
Rules'). The said Rules though was published under the
notification dated 06.03.2018, was given effect to from
06.10.2004, the date of proposal forwarded by the third
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
respondent. The petitioners are before this Court
questioning the said cut-off date of 06.03.2018 fixed in
the 2018 Rules, stating that the same is unreasonable,
arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to law.
4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vyasakiran
Upadhya.B.R., and Sri.Siddhartha.H.M., learned counsel
for petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General
Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2,
4 and 5 and learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri
for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners are retired employees of the
third respondent and they retired prior to 06.10.2004.
Learned counsel would further state that the petitioners
were doing the same work as their counterparts, who were
in service subsequent to 06.10.2004. It is the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, not
extending the benefit of the 2018 Rules to the retired
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
employees prior to 06.10.2004 would amount to
discrimination and the action of the respondents are
discriminatory and unreasonable. Learned counsel would
further submit that the third respondent being the State,
cannot discriminate the employees and submits that
though the notification implementing the revision of pay
was published in March, 2018, the same was given effect
to from 06.10.2004 without there being any basis.
6. It is also contended that the State Government
sought to treat the persons who are similarly placed
unequally. The petitioners who are retired prior to 2004
are similarly placed to the persons who are retired
subsequent to 06.10.2004. In that regard, learned counsel
for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS1.
2023 SCC OnLine SC 100
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General
would submit that the State has fixed the cut-off date as
06.10.2004 to give effect to the notification published on
06.03.2018 to implement the revised pay scales under
2018 Rules. Learned Additional Advocate General would
submit that the basis for fixing the cut-off date is the
proposal of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, which was forwarded
on 06.10.2004. He submits that prior to 06.10.2004, there
was no proposal and further he invites attention of this
Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
12.10.2011 in W.A.No.4411/2011, wherein it is held that
the letter of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of
Karnataka dated 06.10.2004 shall be treated as Rule and
to place the same before the Cabinet. Thus, he submits
that the cut-off date fixed as 06.10.2004 is reasonable and
it is not discriminatory. Further, learned Additional
Advocate General would submit that the petitioners are
not similarly situated persons and they have not been
treated unequally. He submits that the petitioners were
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
retired prior to 06.10.2004 and the benefit of 2018 Rules
is extended to the persons who retired subsequent to
06.10.2004, based on the proposal forwarded by the third
respondent on 06.10.2004. Thus, he prays for dismissal of
the writ petitions.
8. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri
for respondent No.3 would submit that the Association of
employees of the third respondent made a representation
on 09.02.1999 with a request to extend the Central
Government Pay Scale to the High Court Employees. Two
Committees were appointed on 16.09.1999 as well as on
27.10.2002 to examine the representation of the
employees and thereafter on 06.10.2004, the Hon'ble
Chief Justice forwarded the proposal to the State
Government to extend the benefits of Central Government
pay scale to the High Court employees. Further, learned
counsel would submit that earlier to the said proposal,
there was no proposal forwarded to the State
Government. Learned counsel placing reliance on the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE
OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. AMAR NATH GOYAL
AND OTHERS2 submits that fixing the cut-off date is a
policy decision and unless the petitioners establish
unreasonableness, the same cannot be interfered with.
Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition
papers, the only point which would arise for consideration
is as to,
"Whether the cut-off date fixed as
06.10.2004 for extension of Central Civil
Services Pay Rules to the officials of the third
respondent - High Court of Karnataka and also
for extending the pensionary benefits in respect
of the officers of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka who are retired on or before
06.10.2004 requires interference at the hands
of this Court?"
(2005) 6 SCC 754
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
10. The answer to the above point would be in the
negative and the cut-off date fixed is reasonable, which
does not call for interference for the following reasons:
11. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (supra),
fixing cut-off date is a policy decision of the State
Government and while fixing the cut-off date, the State
shall have to take note of the Financial and Economic
implications which are relevant and germane. Further, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MINERAL EXPLORATION
CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ARVIND KUMAR DIXIT AND
ANOTHER3, while answering the question as to whether
fixing the cut-off date on 01.04.2003 by the Corporation in
the matter of wage revision was arbitrary or not, at
paragraphs 17 and 18, placing reliance on the earlier
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held as follows.
"17. It is also contended on behalf of the
respondents that the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-2003
fixed in the above orders is arbitrary and irrational.
(2015) 2 SCC 535
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
As to the cut-off date fixed for the purposes of
pensionary benefits to the employees, who have
retired or died, in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath
Goyal [(2005) 6 SCC 754 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 910] ,
paras 26 and 37 read as under : (SCC pp. 763 &
766)
"26. It is difficult to accede to the argument
on behalf of the employees that a decision of
the Central Government/State Governments to
limit the benefits only to employees, who retire
or die on or after 1-4-1995, after calculating
the financial implications thereon, was either
irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic
implications are very relevant and germane for
any policy decision touching the administration
of the Government, at the Centre or at the
State level.
***
37. In the instant case before us, the cut-
off date has been fixed as 1-4-1995 on a very
valid ground, namely, that of financial
constraints. Consequently, we reject the
contention that fixing of the cut-off date was
arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or
that it offends Article 14."
18. In Sudhir Kumar Consul v. Allahabad
Bank [(2011) 3 SCC 486 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
538] , which also pertains to the question of fixing
of cut-off date for granting retirement benefits, this
Court has laid down, in para 18, as under : (SCC p.
491)
"18. Moreover, the fixing of the cut-off date
for granting retirement benefits such as
gratuity or pension under the different
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
schemes incorporated in the subordinate
legislation, thereby, creating two distinct and
separate classes of employees is well within
the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
differential treatment of two sets of officers
appointed prior to the notified date would not
offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut-
off date may be justified on the ground that
additional outlay as involved or the fact that
under the terms of appointment, the employee
was not entitled to the benefit of pension or
retirement.""
12. In the instant case, the Hon'ble chief justice of
the third respondent forwarded a proposal on 06.10.2004
to extend the Central Civil Services Pay Rules to the
employees of the High Court. As the said proposal was not
accepted, one of the retired employee of High Court of
Karnataka was before this Court in W.P.Nos.2810/2007
C/w 39658/2010 and 12993/2011, disposed off on
26.04.2011 and not being satisfied with the learned Single
Judge's order, W.A.No.4411/2011 was filed and the said
writ appeal was disposed of by judgment dated
12.10.2011, wherein the Division Bench at paragraph 32
has held as follows:
"32. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid
discussion in the light of the ratio laid down by the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in
CHANRARANT SARHARAM KARKHANIS case
followed by the Division Bench of the Gujarath High
Court in the matter of K.K.PARMAR'S case, it has
now become necessary that this Court will have to
hold that the contents of letter dated 6.10.2004
issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of
Karnataka in itself are the Rules framed pursuant to
Article 229(2) of the Constitution with reference to
fixation of revised pay scale to the employees of
the High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, the same
should be placed by the State Government before
its Cabinet at the earliest and dispose of the same
in the light of the observations made by the Apex
Court in the matter of UNION OF INDIA -VS-
S.B.VOHRA, AIR 2004 SC 1402."
13. The Division Bench in the above judgment has
categorically observed that contents of the letter dated
06.10.2004 issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High
Court of Karnataka in itself was the Rules framed pursuant
to Article 229(2) of the Constitution with reference to
fixation of revised pay scales to the employees of High
Court of Karnataka. Subsequently, the said letter is treated
as Rule and the same was placed before the Cabinet, which
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
approved the publication of 2018 Rules with effect from
06.10.2004 being the date of proposal forwarded by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka. The basis
for fixing the cut-off date as 06.10.2004 is the date of
forwarding proposal of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High
Court of Karnataka to the first respondent-State. When the
Division Bench observed to treat the proposal of the
Hon'ble Chief Justice itself as Rules framed under Article
229(2) of the Constitution of India, taking the proposal as
cut-off date is not irrational or arbitrary or unreasonable, as
contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (supra)
to contend that the cut-off date is arbitrary and as it
deprives the benefit of pay revision which is otherwise
made applicable to all employees who worked during a
particular period.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:173
15. No doubt, the petitioners were employees of
the High Court, but they retired prior to 06.10.2004 and
they are not similarly placed persons to that of the
persons who are in service subsequent to 06.10.2004,
even though they discharged their similar work, when they
were in service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
decision supra was considering the case of employees who
were working during the period between 2000 to 2005
who were denied benefits extended to the other
employees. Such is not the case in the instant case.
Therefore, the said decision would not assist the case of
the petitioners.
16. In the light of the above, there is no merit in
the writ petitions and accordingly writ petitions stand
rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
NC
